Parts Layout - Changing Staff Distance
I know this has been covered in many different ways with all of the Musescore versions, but I can't find the answer to my problem. I would like to keep all of the note, measure, and staff sizes the same and not change the Staff Space Scaling but make the distance between the staves increase. I have tried going to Style - General.. - Page and then changing the staff distance. This does nothing to the Part. There has to be a way to do this on the parts. What am I missing?
Comments
Open the tab of a Part, try to change the parameters as in the attached image
In reply to Open the tab of a Part, try by Shoichi
That worked. Thank you. Not the most intuitive system. Overall page layout is the one thing keeping me from using this with all of my students. I wish I knew how to code so I could help with it!
In reply to That worked. Thank you. Not by aedsb
It seems pretty intuitive to me that you should have the score open to make changes to the score, and switch to a part if you want to make changes to the part.
In reply to It seems pretty intuitive to by Isaac Weiss
That was not the issue. The issue was that I was adjusting the staff distance but nothing was happening. What I didn't see was that I had to adjust two sets of numbers (max and min) for something to occur on the part.
In reply to That was not the issue. The by aedsb
Yes, that is surprising at first - although actually, you would normlly only need to alter one or the other, depending on the effect you are trying to achieve. One of the things having two sets of numbers enables is that by changing only these two settings, you can have varying system distance on each page of your score according to how full each is. So for instance, if the first page has eight systems and the next two pages have nine and the last has only three, you can get good results on each page. Same if you have have lyrics and different numbers of verses on different pages, or are creating a condensed score so each system has a different number of staves. This would be impossible to accomplish with just a single global control, and while it would be possible, it would be unnecessarily difficult if each page had its own control you had to adjust manually. A global min and max does the job beautifully in all of these different situations. This is an excellent of the example of the type of thing that might take a minute to get used to, but once you do, you appreciate the powerful, flexibility, and simplicity of the design.
In reply to That worked. Thank you. Not by aedsb
Not sure what you are finding not intuitive. It is very normal that a score would need different layout than the parts. In fact, virtually all scores for more than a small handful of instruments are published that way - score with small staff sizes, parts with larger, etc.
Note that when changing settings for a part, there is an "Apply to All Parts" button that often comes in handy. Also, you can set the *default* style for parts in Edit / Preferences / Score, or in a template for the ensemble you are writing for, so that it should almost never be necessary to mess with settings in parts after the fact - you can set it to be the way you like it right from the beginnning. it's quite a powerful and flexible system.
If you continue to have problems with page layout, feel free to keep asking questions here!
In reply to Not sure what you are finding by Marc Sabatella
What was not intuitive is that I had to adjust two sets of numbers for the staves to move. When I would adjust one, nothing would happen to the part.
In reply to What was not intuitive is by aedsb
Right, but again, you aren't *viewing* the part, so I'm not sure why you'd expect something you aren't viewing to change. And as I have pointed out, most of the time, the score and parts *should* have different settings for such things. So if changing the score always updated the part, you wouldn't be able to create scores and parts that are formatted the way they normally are, with different staff sizes * distances for score versus parts. Anyhow, once you get used to how things work, I think you'll come to find it is an incredibly powerful and yet simple system.
In reply to Right, but again, you aren't by Marc Sabatella
Why do you keep saying that I'm trying to change the score? I'm not. I was in a part, I then went to style - general - page and tried to change the staff distance on the part - NOT the score. When I tried to change the min. system distance, nothing happened. It didn't matter if I made the number bigger (which I would assume would increase the amount of space between the staves) or smaller. Nothing happened. That is what did not make sense. If I change the minimum distance, something should happen. It wasn't until both the min and max were changed that something finally started changing on the part. Again, this was in an individual part - NOT the score. I have been using and teaching music notation software for more than 20 years. I understand the concept of parts versus score and that you want to be able to make changes on each. It's because of this that I was trying to change the parts - NOT the score. I'm fine with the score but I wasn't fine with the parts.
In reply to Why do you keep saying that by aedsb
Sorry, it was simple misunderstanding on our part. Your original post wasn't so detailed, it just said you made a change and didn't see it reflected in the part, so we assumed you were trying to make the change in the score - which would be a common mistake.
Changing minimum distance *does* make something happen - it changes MuseScore's determination of how many staves it can fit on the page (lower minimum = more staves). But the minimum and maximum work together to determine the actual distance, for the reasons I have explained. it really does work extremely well.
In reply to Sorry, it was simple by Marc Sabatella
There is no substitute for being able to grab the end of the stave (staff) with the arrow and just moving it, as with "Encore". That way you can have completely individual spaces between all staves, allowing for varying amounts of material such as chord symbols, dynamics, lyrics etc. I really don't think that the existing MuseScore methods could be called 'powerful' or 'intuitive'. I have many years experience with various notation programs (and page makeup programs) but I've been trying for an hour now just to achieve the 'simple' task of adjusting stave spacing. It's pretty awful, really. I've tried adjusting both sets of figures, obviously.
In reply to There is no substitute for by John Morton
https://musescore.org/en/handbook/breaks-and-spacers ?
It is not similar?
In reply to There is no substitute for by John Morton
If you are having trouble understanding how to do something in MuseScore, please start a new thread and attach the score you are having trouble with and describing precisely what you are trying to do. I'm sure it's quite simple to accomplish whatever you are trying to do, you just have to learn the MuseScore way of doing it, which is probably different form the Encore way. It's always hard unlearning habits that worked with one program when moving to another one. it doesn't mean either program is better or worse, just that change is hard.
Yes, Marc. I've been adapting my methods for years. I understand these things. There should be no reason to submit scores or to start a new topic. The online manual should give an explanation that those of average intelligence can understand. The text refers to 'staves' and 'staffs', sometimes on the same line. It also calls a band part a 'score' in places. Please refer me to a concise explanation, I can do the rest. Thank you, John Morton.
In reply to Yes, Marc. I've been adapting by John Morton
Until we understand what *specifically* you are having trouble with, it's hard to know which part of the documentation to steer you towards. The sections on "Layout and Formatting", "Page Settings", and "Breaks and Spacers" are *all* relevant, but that's a lot of information because it's a very big topic. So if you want a more concise explanation of hwo to solve the *specific* problem you are trying to solve, we need you to help us by explaining your problem in more detail. And it is always best to ask new questions in new threads - that's just how forums are organized and how people expect to work with them.
In reply to Until we understand what by Marc Sabatella
You have a talent for missing the point. This is a simple job to do and it's infernally difficult. There is no possible justification for this and the one thing that people never, ever do, when they're writing explanative text (the Handbook), is to evade the issue. I used to write technical manuals and we always claimed that the onus is on the communicators to make themselves understood. We assumed the reader knows nothing. P.S. I've solved the problem. I've found that if I INCREASE the spacing it reduces it!! Please regard this matter as closed, thanks, JM.
In reply to You have a talent for missing by John Morton
Changing staff distance is *not* difficult to do. It is easy, *if you know how*. Right now, you simply don't know how, so of course it *seems* difficult, just as anything else does until you learn how. We would be happy to show you how if you explain in more detail what *exactly* you are trying to do.
I have no idea what you mean about increasing the spacing actually reducing it. That is *not* how MuseScore works. Sounds like you are misunderstanding something pretty fundamental. Again, though, without seeing your score and understanding *exactly* what you are trying to do, we cannot help. We are not evading the issue. We simply cannot help unless you explain further what problem you are trying to solve.
In reply to Yes, Marc. I've been adapting by John Morton
The word "staffs" appears nowhere in the manual, just "staff", singular in US English ("stave" in British English) and "staves", plural.
The words "band part" don't exists in the handbook.
In reply to The word "staffs" appears by Jojo-Schmitz
True, Jojo. Was this supposed to help?
In reply to True, Jojo. Was this supposed by John Morton
No. It was to defend your allegations.
Well, I took it as a trigger to check the handbook for such inconsistencies, to find none, which is good. And to fix one of two mistakes, where we used 'stave' rather than 'staff', see https://musescore.org/en/node/36141/revisions/view/241546/270581, while @mike320 fix the other, see https://musescore.org/en/node/139296/revisions/view/224606/270586.
I'm trying to reduce the space between staves. I've read the manual and this forum and I still can't do it. With no sign of regret for this in evidence on your part I must give up the discussion. JM.
In reply to I'm trying to reduce the by John Morton
See https://musescore.org/en/handbook/layout-and-formatting#style-edit-gene…
There's "Staff distance". But there's also "Grand staff distance", "Min. system distance" and "Max. system distance". Without seeing your score it is impossible to tell which you need.
What we've seen at times is that an empty lyrics caused unwanted staff distance. Again, without seeing your score we can't tell
In reply to See by Jojo-Schmitz
I've found that adjusting just the 'max system distance' works. The other boxes just don't appear to do anything. It's clear from the large number of comments online that this facility is very confusing to everyone and until the developers admit this there will be no progress. JM.
In reply to I've found that adjusting by John Morton
Good, so "Max. system distance" does exactly what it is supposed to do, right?
One thing that might need improvement in that dialog is that the max value should not be allowed to below the min value and vice versa.
In reply to Good, so "Max. system by Jojo-Schmitz
Well, no, not really. 'Max system distance' does not communicate the idea to me at all. I would expect it to set a distance that can't be exceeded. I wonder if poor translation (from German) is to blame??
In reply to Well, no, not really. 'Max by John Morton
Max means it can't get bigger than that (other then thu use of a spacer), min means it can't get smaller than that. And that is what it does.
There is no translation involved, "Max. System distance" is the source for other translations
In reply to Max means it can't get bigger by Jojo-Schmitz
It just doesn't make sense Jojo. Can't you see that? If I wanted to convey my meaning here I would put 'Spacing Adjustment' or something similar. To provide a command designed to adjust spacing and then to call it 'Max system distance' sounds almost deliberately obtuse. It's ridiculous. And the sheer weight of evidence stacked against you in the form of the many people who stumble over this makes your reluctance to accept criticism very worrying. MuseScore is a stable and delightful program in many respects but it has some serious faults. I intended to pay for the upgrade by now but how can I with responses such as this?
In reply to It just doesn't make sense by John Morton
No, indeed I don't see this.
We have Min. and Max. System Distance, meaning how far apart systems are at least and at most, respectively. What terms would convey the meanings better?
These ain't commands by the way, but settings.
Pay for an upgrade? MuseScore is free.
In reply to No, indeed I don't see by Jojo-Schmitz
But you don't need to know max and min settings, just space as required. And you knew what I meant by 'command'. There was an announcement somewhere that paying got you a better version.
In reply to But you don't need to know by John Morton
"Space as required" is defined by min. and max. distance. What the heck is so difficult to understand about that?
You need it this way, I need it that way, another person needs it another way, there is no single need, nor a DWIM (Do What I Mean) setting.
I'm very sure there's no such announcement about paying for a better Version of MuseScore, but if there is, it is utter nonsense or Fake News (tm). Please tell where you found that.
You may be talking about MuseScpre.com and its Pro account. Or about the Android and iOS Songbook apps?
In reply to "Space as required" is by Jojo-Schmitz
Do you accept that I find it difficult to understand?
In reply to Do you accept that I find it by John Morton
Well, I guess I have to accept it, but I don't understand it and I hope you can accept that.
See https://musescore.org/en/handbook/layout-and-formatting#distance-betwee…, what in the handbook or the program could get changed to make it clearer?
Further up (much further up) you wrote:
There is no substitute for being able to grab the end of the stave (staff) with the arrow and just moving it
This indeed is possible in MuseScore too, by pressing Shift while dragging, see https://musescore.org/en/handbook/staff-properties#common-staff-propert…
And just to be faster than you on this ;-): yes, this is pretty well hidden, I knew it is there, but it still took me quite a bit of searching to find it.
In reply to Well, I guess I have to by Jojo-Schmitz
Have you ever lost your car keys? You search high and low and in desperation you start looking in the fridge and the dishwasher. That was my mindset when, after hours of trying to set the spacing, I tried the successful box. The one box both reduces AND expands the spacing so the max and min settings are doubly confusing. Yes, I can accept your opinion is different from mine but it isn't that simple. LOADS of people have struggled over this and your reluctance to accept that there's a problem (quote:"what the heck...?) isn't very scientific. Interestingly, when I INCREASED the figures in one of the left hand boxes the spacing reduced, but only so far. Further alterations did not work.
In reply to Have you ever lost your car by John Morton
As I wrote, I accept that you (and others) find it difficult to understand, only I don't understand why.
And a "Space as needed" or DWIM isn't scientific either ;-)
In reply to As I wrote, I accept that you by Jojo-Schmitz
I don't follow that. Anyway, enough is enough, for the sake of others on here.
In reply to I don't follow that. Anyway, by John Morton
I am sorry you are finding this frustrating. Should you ever wish to receive help with this problem, we will happy to help you further. But perhaps now it is more clear why we keep asking for more information - a specific score and a more precise description of the problem you are having as it applies to that score. Then we can give a less vague and more specific explanation that would be easier to understand.
In reply to It just doesn't make sense by John Morton
The reason the setting is called "Max system distance" is because that is what it controls. In MsueScore, you do not set a single distance for all staves. It would be a bad thing if MuseScore were that limited, as it means the spacing would have to be the same on all pages. That would mean the bottom margins would be different on pages with different numbers of systems, or if lyrics or spacers or other elements change the content from page to page. And that would be bad.
So instead of limiting you to just one setting for system page that is blindly appleid to all pages regardless of how appropriate it might be, we give you *two* settings - a minimum and a maximum. MuseScore then "floats" the actual system between those two values to keep a consistent bottom margin where possible. And that is why the two settings are called "min" and "max" - because that is indeed exactly what they are.
If you truly want the spacing the same on all pages, even at the expense of different bottom margins, then simply set the min and max to the same value. But normally, you would *want* them different, and the default values were chosen to handle a number of situations well.
The other settings ("staff" and "grand staff"), btw, *do* have effect, but not on *system* distance - only on *staff* distance *within* a single system.
Again, if you are having trouble seeing how this applies to your specific score, please attach it and we can show you more specifically, so we don't have to keep talking in vague generalities but instead can show you *precisely* how these numbers apply.
In reply to The reason the setting is by Marc Sabatella
I fail to see the usefulness of this. It just adds unnecessary complexity. Music has widely differing amounts of material between the staves to such an extent that personal overseeing of layout will always be required. The job I'm doing at the moment (involving a songwriter's copyrighted compositions which cannot be shared with you, hence the 'vague generalities') is a good example. Sometimes a song will have to continue onto a second page whether I like it or not if I am to avoid unacceptable bunching together. Acceptable layouts require more than mathematics to achieve a good result. I might actually accept a wider margin at the top and bottom as a sensible compromise in rare cases. It only takes seconds to adjust these things and take a look. Anyway, if that's how the program works then that's how it works. At least I can achieve what I'm looking for.
In reply to I fail to see the usefulness by John Morton
The usefulness is, for a great many scores, this system produces exactly the right result with no need to manually adjust a thing. This really does work in a great many cases, and it is a truly wonderful thing to not need to resort to manual adjustments for these scores.
But of course, we also provide the ability to do manual adjustments in the cases where it is needed. So we provide the best of both worlds.
if you need further assistance learning how this works, feel free to create a "dummy" score - or even just delete the notes from the one you are working on if you have reason to think the songwriter would be opposed to your posting it here.
Anyhow, we are always happy to help.
In reply to The usefulness is, for a by Marc Sabatella
Thank you! A description such as this is needed in the manual. It was also needed earlier in this long series of messages during which conversations with Jojo were in danger of descending into a squabble.My main complaint is that I had been unable to understand how to do this by studying the manual. When writing explanative text we all approach the task with prior knowledge of how things work which will colour our judgement unless we assume a blank sheet on the part of our readers.
Re: selective editing, the option to shift/drag a stave doesn't work here. I've tried pressing the shift key both before and after clicking with the arrow.
I still don't follow what all the other boxes are for but that will come I hope.
In reply to Thank you! A description such by John Morton
Feel free to improve the handbook.
And it is shift+mouse drag, not arrow. Or right click, staff properties, extra distance
In reply to Feel free to improve the by Jojo-Schmitz
That's what I meant. Click on the bar or select (with the arrow) and shift/drag. It doesn't work.
In reply to That's what I meant. Click on by John Morton
Certainly works for me.
Hmm, in a 4 part SAATB (with a hidden Tenor) it works for Alto (and Tenor), not for Soprano. And not for Bass as long as Tenor is hidden.
In another score, Closed score SATB plus piano, it works for Tenor/Bass and both piano staves, but not for Soprano.
So seems there are bugs lurking, although in the latter case this might be OK, we're modifying staff distance here, and the top staff doesn't have this to a staff above, there it is system distance.
In reply to Certainly works for me. Hmm, by Jojo-Schmitz
Is there an issue with the attached score? Shift + drag doesn't work on the top staff (vocal) in the system.
In reply to Is there an issue with the by geetar
It worked fine on the attachment. I understand about the top stave. I can't spend any more time on this. For such a basic task to cause so much trouble is beyond the bounds of all reason which is a pity because in most respects MuseScore is so delightful to use. I can get the job done with just the one Max box. Thanks to everyone for their time and trouble.
In reply to Is there an issue with the by geetar
As that Shift+Drag works on extra staff distance, it won't invluence system distance, hence not work on top staff
In reply to Certainly works for me. Hmm, by Jojo-Schmitz
Shift+drag is for changing the distance between staves *within* a system. My guess is you are trying to change distance between *systems* this way, but that's not what this does.
In reply to Shift+drag is for changing by Marc Sabatella
I'm trying to affect the distance of staves, in this case the spacing between staves of a song copy to allow for individual content. This can only be assured visually, not by typing in coordinates, because of the peculiar juxtaposition of objects. The line spacing in text is an example of this problem where lines with more ascenders and descenders will appear to the eye to be closer. Another example of visual control is the capital 'O' which is taken slightly above and below the line otherwise it will appear to be smaller than adjacent letters. I.e. the present problem isn't a mechanical process. The attached file 'Example' shows how each job begins. It was created as a template in MuseScore. Shift-dragging does not work. I have no trouble adjusting the vertical arrangement in orchestral and band scores under Layout>Page Settings, by the way, but this affects the size of staves also which will not work in the job in hand which requires uniformity in this respect. I can affect the spacing of staves with Style>General>Page>Max System Distance so I'm happy but, as I commented earlier, the description does not match this function.
In reply to I'm trying to affect the by John Morton
In that example there is only one staff, so staff distance doesn't really exists, but only system distance (min/max). And of course that means no Shift+drag.
As there is anough space at the bottom of the pages, it currently uses the max. System distance Setting. The min. system distance comes into play, when there is not enough space anymore (like here when adding more measures and more system breaks), so systems 'spill over' to the next page, once that min is reached
The text issues you mention are a know issue in 2.0.3, see #117191: [Windows] Font kerning issue with lyrics in 2.0.3 not present in 2.0.2
In reply to In that example there is only by Jojo-Schmitz
So, as I said earlier, there is no selective, individual, spacing in MuseScore.
Ignore the spacing at the bottom of the file. That will be filled by the other verses typed into text boxes when I drag the files into "Pages" as PDF's. This is why I need to be able to compress the image vertically in some cases, but not all. I can scale the images and move them about up to a point. I use EPS files usually, but I can't find that facility in MuseScore. PDF's work fine, though. It was not my intention to introduce the text problem into this but there is a problem with text in MuseScore, as you infer, both with spacing/kerning and selection.
In reply to So, as I said earlier, there by John Morton
Actually, there is selective, individual, spacing in MuseScore—it's just that it saves time if you can adjust some score-wide settings to get the effect you want, instead of manually spacing everything. But you can find staff spacers in the Breaks & Spacers palette, and read about them here: https://musescore.org/en/node/36151
In reply to So, as I said earlier, there by John Morton
of course there also is individual spacing, just spacers at those places where you do need extra space, see https://musescore.org/en/handbook/breaks-and-spacers
In reply to I'm trying to affect the by John Morton
The score you uploaded is empty - is that what you meant?
As noted above, this score has only one staff. So there is nothing for Shift+drag do. As I explained previously, Shift+drag is for changing the spacing of staves *within* a system. Your systems have only one staff.
Also, Shift+drag is intended to create additional space *score-wide* for the affected staves. Like, in a score for orchestra, you might use Shift+drag to create additional space between woodwinds and brass, so that additional space will be there on *all* systems throughout the score.
If you just want additional space between one *system* and the next - which is the only possible situation for your score, since it contains only one staff - then again as noted, you want a spacer. Add it from the palette and size it manually., It is extremely simple. The settings in the Style / General / Page dialog are for changing the spacing across the entire score; spacers are for changing the spacing just at that one spot.
In reply to The score you uploaded is by Marc Sabatella
Isaac, Jojo and Marc: I've used the spacers for years but the tool only EXPANDS the spacing, as far as I can see from the manual. Regarding the example submitted: yes, it was blank. To me, as a musician, it has five staves one above the other and I want to be able to selectively, individually, reduce the spacing between them. That is what all the messages over the last few days have been about. This task is blissfully simple in "Encore" where you can not only grab a stave and move it but, by option-dragging, you can space all following staves by the same proportion. (You can also move a bar line which is much better than the MuseScore method where, if you space the bar with Shift ] it annoyingly spaces the adjacent bars also, which is useless. You can't use the backspace key if you make a mistake in lyrics, either. The way lyrics work is really bad. Don't tell me, Another thread, OK.)
In reply to Isaac, Jojo and Marc: I've by John Morton
The next major version will have something like a negative spacer, until then, reduce the distance over all, and increase where needed.
Sure backspace is possible in lyrics entry, for the current sylable. To go back to prev sylable use Shift+Space
In reply to The next major version will by Jojo-Schmitz
But not letter-by-letter, which is where most typing errors occur.
For the benefit of all who follow can I ask the team to review the foregoing exchanges and to ask themselves whether or not we should have reached this point days ago. My meaning should have been clear enough.
In reply to But not letter-by-letter, by John Morton
?? while inputting a lycirs sylable Backspace just works as one would expect, it deletes the character before the cursor of that one sylable
And this lengthy discussion shows pretty clearly that your meaning was not clear enough, to more than one responder.
In reply to But not letter-by-letter, by John Morton
This is why we always ask for a sample score and precise steps to reproduce a problem - so we know *exactly* which distance(s) you are trying to adjust and in which direction. As it is, we had to guess. Something to keep in mind next time you ask for help - providing an actual example makes all the difference in the world.
In reply to Isaac, Jojo and Marc: I've by John Morton
Not sure what you mean about barlines - you shouldn't normally be moving them in the first place. Whatever it is you are trying to do should probably be accomplished another way. That also should be the subject of another thread. And, as always, please attach a sample score and clear description of the actual problem you are trying to solve, so we can provide help more quickly and accurately.
In reply to Not sure what you mean about by Marc Sabatella
I think you're winding me up.
In reply to I think you're winding me up. by John Morton
I'm sure he's not
But who was to blame, Jojo? See the original post from aedsb. Similar to my problem I think so you can't claim that my post originated this series of queries or that a lack of clarity on my part was solely responsible. But still we quarrel.
There is an important difference between staves and systems.
From the OP's (aedsb) original post concerning parts:
I would like to... make the distance between the staves increase.
For a single-staff part, one should adjust system distance, not staff distance.
From this post:
https://musescore.org/en/node/89146#comment-668171
I'm trying to reduce the space between staves.
Again, staff or (actually) system?
Since most of the discussion here is about Min./Max. system distance, have a look at this attachment, and follow the two steps. Please open it in MuseScore with 'Page View' selected, along with 'Whole Page' or 'Two Pages' (toolbar zoom setting).
Increase min. system distance.mscz
To keep it simple...
Please note that this example displays a single staff instrument (could even be a part from a full score, as per the OP); so, in this case, a single line of music is considered a 'system' and system distances apply*. Also here, no notes, no lyrics, etc. are entered.
As you can see, the staff/system spacer (from the Breaks & Spacers palette) can only increase the distance. This asymetrical behavior will change in a future iteration of MuseScore. As Jojo wrote:until then, reduce the distance over all, and increase where needed.
In my experience, though, when using the staff/system spacer, I have had more occasions to increase the distance - usually due to high and low notes (ledger lines) on adjacent staves, ossia, etc.
Regards.
*Multi-staved instruments (e.g. piano, organ) and multi-instrument scores (e.g. string quartet) must contend with 'Staff distance' (distance between staves in a system) in addition to 'System distance'.
P.S. Lyrics can also have an effect on spacing, which is why posting a score (or example) helps.
In reply to There is an important by Jm6stringer
Thanks for that. As you will realise the present topic dragged on and on because I was referring to a band, song or orchestral part as having multiple staves whereas, technically, they have one - extracted from the score. Bearing in mind that I was enquiring how to have greater control over spacing (because of differing content such as chord symbols, lyrics, dynamics etc.) then, without regarding the staves a being separate, multiple items, the question of how wide apart or how close they are wouldn't apply. Obviously, one object cannot be in two places at once. I believe that my meaning should have been clear to anyone with a genuine interest in helping and I have expressed my dissatisfaction with the time-wasting that resulted. This isn't the first time I have encountered what I perceive to be obstructiveness on here, hence my present stance. Marc's response to my comment about bar spacing was the end for me. Life's too short and time is too valuable. Thanks again, John Morton.
In reply to Thanks for that. As you will by John Morton
"Life's too short and time is too valuable."
Please remember that the next time people like Marc and JoJo are giving you free help for free software they did not even author. Sorry - I'm on their side here.
In reply to Thanks for that. As you will by John Morton
??? I don't recall you asking anything particularly *specific* about bar spacing. I saw something about wanting to "move a barline", which as I said, isn't normally something you should do. You then said something about trying to "space the bar". But that is simply not enough information for us to understand what problem you are trying to solve or how exactly you are trying to solve it or what exactly is going wrong.
In order to understand how to help, we need to understand your actual goal, and that requires you to explain in more detail, which is usually easiest if you attach a specific score. That's just a fact of life, it isn't us trying to be difficult. Your mechanic can't reliably fix your car based on just a one sentence description of the symptom you are seeing - he will want to have the actual car in front of him, open the hood, etc. Similarly your doctor can't generally heal you just a one-sentence description of your symptom - he will want to actually examine you, run tests, etc. Otherwise, they are just guessing. Sometimes mechanics and doctors might happen to guess right, but often they won't.
If you don't have time to provide the information we need in order to provide good help, that is fine, but then please do not blame us for asking for the information, or for not being able to provide better help without the necessary information. We really do need this information to do better than guess. You are looking right at your score and know exactly what you are dealing with and so your short descriptions of the problem might seem obvious to you, but please realize they are *not* obvious to others, and *that* is why we haven't been able to sovle your problems more efficiently. Not because we don't want to, but because we are only hujman - like mechanics and doctors - and can help better given actual scores (cars / bodies) to work with and not just text descriptions.
You are right that life is short and time is valuable, and yet we are *volunteering* our time to help you here. Please keep that in mind as well. We do like helping, and don't mind spending time doing so, but we do appreciate it if the people asking for help understand if we can't always understand a problem fully at first and sometimes require more information.